The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-03-30
ISUPREME COURT CASES
Reported for The Clarion by w. H. Harper
ki.orreysf-la~, Jackson, Miss
October Term 1850.
L. C. LEA,
The STATE.

THE STATE.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Tate
county. Hon. A. I. Roane, Judge
Stands & johnson. for the appellent.
I. NJ Miller, Attorney General, for
the State.
L. c. Lea was indicted for perjury.
Lea had previously been on trial for I'M
lawfully retailing vinous and spirituous
liquors, and appeared as n witness in his
own behalf. This indictment charges that
''upon the trial of said issue it became
and was a material question aud matter
in the same whether said Lea had sold
directly or indirectly in Tate county
any vinous or spirituous liquors in 3
less quantity than one gallon, to either
P. G.. Cromwell, Taylor Gibson, Jones
Bowie, Jno. Mcdowell, Sr., or JnO. Nc
Dowell, Jr., at any time before August
| /, 1884, and April 8 1885, and it became
and was a material question aud matter
whether the five one half barrels of whis
| ky then (meaning at the time of the pro-
| gress of and during the trial of the cause)
In his, the said LEAFS business house in
| Senatobia, were the same and identical
| five one half barrels of whisky which
he, the said Lea, had received from and
at the railroad station of Loves about
| the 10th of March, 1885, and that there
upon the said Lea being so sworn as
| aforesaid, devising and intending to
cause and procure verdict to pass for
him, did then aud there, towit: on the
SAID 9th of April, 1885, before the said
court and jury, did falsely, feloniously,
wilfully swear that he had not unlaw-
fully sold liquors to the persons above
named and that the whisky above alluded
to was nos the same. The defendant
moved to quash this Indictment be
cause it failed to show how the matters
alleged to have been falsely sworn to
were material TO the issue being tried
On the trial the court instructed the
Jury as follows: 81. In determining the
question whether or not defendant diC
sell vinous or spirituous liquors to either
of the parties mentioned in the indict
ment, the jury may not only look to tn,
evidence of any one witness who has
testified that he did buy such liquors OF
Lea, but may also look to the evidenc,
) of all witnesses who have testified
if any have so testified, of having bough
such liquors about that time of sale
Lea, as evidence tending to corroborat,
the evidence OF the Other, and III deter
mining his guilt or innocence under tn,
indictment. the jury should look to tn
: whole evidence in the case, not to ID,
evidence of one witness only"
The defendant was convicted, and Il,
appealed.
! ARNOLD, J., delivered the opinion o
the Court.
The failure to state in the indictmen
: facts necessary to show the materially
of the false testimony, was not "A caus,
for which the indictment should hav,
. been quashed or for which the judgmen
should have been arrested. in an in
1 dictment for perjury, it is sufficient t,
charge generally, that the matter sworI
to in the false oath was material to Tia,
issue or point of inquiry upon which i
e was taken, without showing particular,
: how it was material. The pleader ha
$ choice of two methods ON the subject
he may either charge that the matter o
the false oath was material, or he ma,
D set out the facts which show its mater
a ality in law. Wharf. Or. l.. Sec. 2263
e Bish. CIR. Pro. Sec. 921.
BY the first instruction given for tn,
State, the jury was permitted to trea
! the several and separate sales which
: different witnesses testified had beer
E made by the appellant, at differen
times, as corroborative evidence of eacl
other This was error. Proof of eithel
assignment of perjury contained in tn
indictment, by two witnesses or by on,
{ witness and corroborating circumstances
+ would have supported conviction, bu
the better opinion in such case is, tina
t proof of one assignment is not corrob
!, GRATED by proof of another, even whel
: all the perjuries assigned are committee
e at the same time and place. l Greenlf
Ey. Sec. 257. Williams v. Com. 9
Penn. st. 493. Reg v. Parker, | Car 1
0 Marsh, $50.
For the error in the instruction t,
which reference has been made, tn,
Judgment is reversed aad the cause re
: nanded.